A former BBC journalist and academic is suing a university after losing out on a promotion, claiming that he has been discriminated against for his insomnia.
Media law lecturer Simon Pipe, 62, who teaches at Coventry University, has applied for a promotion four times between 2017 and 2020, but has been shot down each time for his lack of a PhD.
Mr Pipe has slammed the decision, arguing that his insomnia prevents him sleeping more than four hours per night, making it tougher to achieve the PhD necessary for the promotion.
Mr Pipe, from Warwickshire, moved into academia after a successful career in newspapers and the BBC, where he rose to the ranks of senior broadcast journalist
The academic is now suing the university for disability discrimination, claiming that his ADHD and sleep-related disorders make it impossible for him to do the necessary work.
Media law lecturer Simon Pipe, 62, who teaches at Coventry University, has applied for a promotion four times between 2017 and 2020, but has been shot down each time
But, lawyers for the Coventry University Higher Education Corporation say there was no ‘business case’ for promoting Mr Pipe, as there was no job there for him.
The former journalist was told his failure to meet research expectations or demonstrate a ‘pathway’ to a PhD meant he did not satisfy the university’s requirements for higher roles.
Mr Pipe has already lost before an employment tribunal and an employment appeal judge, but has now taken his case to the Court of Appeal in London.
His barrister, Schona Jolly KC, said Mr Pipe had been working as a Grade six assistant lecturer in the university’s School of Media and Performing Arts, as well as doing hourly paid work as a Grade seven lecturer.
But when he put himself forward for promotion to a Grade seven level, he was repeatedly knocked back by his superiors.
‘Despite his experience, skills and exemplary teaching record, these applications/requests were rejected,’ Ms Jolly said.
‘He asserts here, as he did below, that this was because he could not satisfy the requirements of the respondent’s academic progression process.
‘In particular, he asserts that it was substantially more difficult for him to satisfy its criteria pertaining to having a PhD and demonstrating research excellence due to the impairments in his executive functioning.’
Mr Pipe claims that his insomnia prevents him sleeping more than four hours per night, making it tougher to achieve the PhD necessary for the promotion
Ms Jolly said Mr Pipe had been diagnosed with ADHD, which has a ‘significant impact on his executive functioning, namely his organisation, planning, prioritisation, task initiation and completion, concentration and motivation.’
‘The claimant also has a sleep disorder, sleeping less than four hours on average per night,’ she continued.
‘The claimant’s sleep disorder results in constant fatigue and exacerbates the cognitive difficulties associated with ADHD.’
The academic’s GP confirmed that the sleep problem ‘can massively affect his concentration,’ while a consultant in neurophysiology Dr Zenobia Zaiwalla said it would pose difficulties for him to complete a PhD.
‘The severity of the sleep disturbance is likely to have an impact on his daytime functioning with in particular difficulty in planning and organisation and retaining information in addition to constant tiredness,’ she said.
Mr Pipe’s previous case against the university, during which he claimed the university failed to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to cater for his problems, was thrown out by an employment tribunal in 2022.
Lawyers for the Coventry University Higher Education Corporation say there was no ‘business case’ for promoting Mr Pipe, as there was no job there for him
The tribunal found the reason he was refused promotion was because there were no jobs available for him at the higher grade.
But appealing, Ms Jolly said that, although the ‘business case’ was based on a lack of available jobs, his disability was also part of the university’s decision-making process.
‘It is undisputed that the claimant performed at a very high standard throughout his employment, with a gift for teaching, innovation and student engagement,’ she said.
‘It is the claimant’s case, and the tribunal found, that his disability substantially disadvantages his capacity to meet the academic/research requirements.’
She added: ‘The consistent explanations regarding the PhD/research criteria in relation to the rejection of the claimant’s applications were not merely constructive feedback – rather, they constituted the reasons for rejection, or at least a non-trivial or effective set of reasons.’
She also argued that the university’s promotion ‘framework’ itself – and its focus on PhDs and research excellence – discriminated against Mr Pipe, and that this was not properly considered by the employment judges.
Mr Pipe has already lost before an employment tribunal and an employment appeal judge, but has now taken his case to the Court of Appeal in London
‘The tribunal failed at any point in its proportionality assessment to have regard to the discriminatory effect of the framework on the claimant,’ she said.
‘At a very minimum, the balancing exercise required the tribunal to weigh the respondent’s aims/needs against the discriminatory impact on the claimant, but was entirely missing from the tribunal’s judgment.
‘Thus, in failing to consider the impact of the discriminatory measure itself, it failed to properly ask itself whether the measure was reasonably necessary or, alternatively, a fair balance had been struck.’
Arguing that the tribunal ruling should be upheld, the university’s barrister Edmund Williams KC said disability laws do not require an employer to promote a disabled person if there is no job for them, and no business case to support creation of a role.
‘Disabled employees in the workplace do not operate in a vacuum – like all employees, there must be jobs for them to do in the first place,’ he told the court.
He added: ‘The fact that Mr Pipe did not have a PhD was not a material cause of…the non-promotion.
‘The material cause was the lack of a business case for his promotion and his refusal to engage with the university’s efforts to support and facilitate his promotion journey.’
Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Moylan and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing will give their decision on the appeal at a later date.